I think that most people in the US don't have strong opinions about politics and barely follow what's going on. They just want things to work reasonably well and for the economy to chug along, and they're willing to make concessions in order to please the most people. I think since Clinton, at least, the Democratic Party has tried to represent these people's interests and is no longer a "liberal" party. Because of this, the Republican party has had to become more right-wing to distinguish itself, and to yell louder to try to get more people riled up.

In my admittedly small circle almost no one I know would properly fit into the orthodox views of either parties and trying to jam everyone into two groups produces some disturbingly inane arguments. I've seen people who have nearly identical political views argue themselves silly as they have identified with separate parties. The Republicans have figured that orthodoxy makes their brand stronger and keeps everyone in line. The Dems don't have someone effectively handling brand management. The healthy tension between government and free markets that the system should be managing is being broken by the party system virus infecting our government.

I never said that you thought that liberals were evil. However, you have repeatedly accused progressives as being dishonest, and when we tried to explain to you that some of your perception might be due to different perspectives you refused to accept this. Instead, it seems like you have simply repeated the same point about liberals being dishonest over and over again never changing it in response to new information. So to the extent I am being harsh to you, it because I am getting frustrated.

Having said this, I will acknowledge that I mistakenly read too much into your posts by claiming that you said that liberals "can't be trusted with power", and apologize for putting words in your mouth. I got this impression because you once said something negative about liberals and said that this was why they belong on the sidelines, but having re-read that post I see now that at the time I probably misunderstood what you were getting at.

@ ccusa: "I'm getting slammed a bit unfairly."

Given that you slammed me for being unwilling to admit that the author of the article you quoted was a liberal for no good reason at all, it's a little late for you to cry foul for being slammed unfairly. :-)

@ ccusa: "I propose a thesis. I admit a overstate my point in doing so. But in any event, I'm certainly inviting discourse."

Yes, but discourse implies a two-way street that also involves listening and adapting one's point to criticisms rather than essentially repeating the same point over and over again.

@ ccusa: "My response is that it doesn't matter that it's not held by a majority. It's a position that comes from that end of the spectrum is all that matters. It's published in a major newspaper by a person employed as a university professor. These things are what matters when creating impressions."

Fine, I can see how some people might read this article and so associate liberalism with pacifism. If your point is to talk about the subjective impressions that people get of movements right or wrong, then fair enough. However, recall how this discussion was started:

@ ccusa: "In conversations a liberal always ends up telling you all sorts of people are evil, when you know those people and they're nice, and that things that should be obvious (like the most skilled person should get the job) are in fact invidous, and its like, wow, lo and behold, whoever a liberal feels for on that particular day should be the winner."

If your point was simply to convey that this is an impression that people get of liberals, then fair enough. However, the way you wrote it made it sound like this was your opinion of liberals in general, and your follow-up posts continued in this trend.

Also, I maintain that it is unreasonable for you to claim (as you seem to be doing) that one can never compare the good traits of Taliban soldiers and American soldiers since the former are evil and thus can never be compared with American soldiers at all, and therefore anyone who makes such a comparison is seriously loopy.

Are you serious? Talk about a pathetic bit of writing. The issue is obvious. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are beholden to corporate interests and the wealthy.

The Republicans don't have a problem being loud and proud about their "conservatism" because this "conservatism" is in the interests of the establishment wealthy and corporations.

The Democrats can't be "loud and proud" "liberals" because in order to do so they would have to take on the corporations and the wealthy, which they have no interest in doing.

This talk of "centrism" is just another way of saying "policies that are acceptable to the corporations and the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.

The idea that people like Frank are "too liberal" is nonsense. If you look at the issues positions that are supported by 70%+ of the population, like eliminating the cap on the Social Security tax, raising taxes on the wealthy, getting out of Afghanistan, etc., are all called "far left" by Democrats and the MSM, but they aren't "far left", how can they be "far left" when overwhelming majorities of the population support them?

Come on, get real, what a waste of space to even have written this article.

The explanation to this behavior is simple. The Republicans have a nearly homogeneous party, made up of the wealthy, the religious and the military. The Democrats have a broader coalition, with some groups naturally at odds with each other. Environmentalists and union labor groups typify the competing forces within the Democrats.

Because the Democratic Party must form coalitions and barter amongst themselves in order to produce policy ideas, this negotiation becomes natural behavior for it's leaders. Intrinsic in the Democrats is the belief in attempting to find an equitable solution for all. Unfortunately this rational line of thinking comes off as looking namby-pamby to the American public and saps their strength when dealing with the dogmatic Republican party.

Democrats have reason to be cautious and timid: They represent the fringe of US life. While Democrats control Hollywood, the media, the Universities, the blacks, some of the immigrants and the labor unions, all those groups together represent a minority. Most of hard working, church going, tax paying US citizens are outside the Democrats' control.

I do think political views reflect (possibly genetically driven) personality differences. Conservatives may be less empathic and less socially oriented. So they don't seek compromise or cooperation for its own sake, but only as a means to a selfish end.

But: see "The Empathic Civilsation" by Jeremy Rifkin - if he is right then the caring, co-operative instinct is the basis of our humanity and civilisation, not competition...

So conservatism may an atavistic left over of a more primitive stage of development, or be an evolutionary dead-end of instinctive 'cheats' in the game of social organisation, who parasitically manipulate the co-operation of others.

Doesn't that sound about right to describe Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or George Osborne? Wouldn't it explain well the behaviour of bankers?

G, I'll say one more thing about your unanswered point: pacifism isn't a position held by a majority of liberals, so what is wrong with me for citing that article to support my caricature of liberals to explain why they're not so loud and proud? My response is that it doesn't matter that it's not held by a majority. It's a position that comes from that end of the spectrum is all that matters. It's published in a major newspaper by a person employed as a university professor. These things are what matters when creating impressions.

I'm getting slammed a bit unfairly. Baseballhead, EG asks a question, why are conservatives loud and proud whereas liberals aren't? I propose a thesis. I admit a overstate my point in doing so. But in any event, I'm certainly inviting discourse. Also, the nature of EG's question requires the thesis to some extent to be focused on caricatures, or extremes as you call it. Consider when you criticize that you're criticizing a person that has voted far more for Democrats in his lifetime than Republicans. I certainly don't think liberals are evil or can't be trusted with power. G cross is not understanding what I'm writing, and I'm done trying to explain it.

For the record, I don't want to line up liberals in concentration camps and gas them. That would be too humane. I want to round em up like cattle into cages and feed them to sharks with freaking lasers attached to their freaking heads.

Yes, exactly, you concluded that he wants to gas his adversaries based on the words that he chose to express his viewpoint, despite the fact that his words directly paralleled your own in what you quoted. Sure, I acknowledge that you are using more than a single quote to arrive at your conclusion, but it is still absurd.

I agree with you that RR often makes unreasonable points to support his position and that he often writes in a belligerent style. Heck, when you were criticizing these aspect of his posts I was right along with you. However, there is a *huge* difference between arguing belligerently and unreasonably for a particular perspective and CALLING FOR ONE'S ADVERSARIES TO BE GASSED, and I repeat that it crosses the line to accuse someone of the latter merely because they are exhibiting the former.

@g cross:
Reading comprehension isn't a strong point or maybe you were just distracted and failed to comprehend the post. You seem to think that I said that because of RR's views that he wants to gas his adversaries. I said no such thing. What I actually said is that the belligerence he shows towards people who disagree with him is the exact same as the belligerence shown by other absolutist, ideological movements that inevitably end of genociding huge swaths of the population. This is spot on with the point of the article, which is why I thought one might catch the drift.

The strange thing about all these genocidal movements throughout history is that if you look back at their writings before they gained power you see the same absolutist, ideological belligerence that screams I'm going to kill you given the chance. It's a frightening phenomena, one that needs to be called out before its too late.

One big difference is that the Republican/conservative message is easy and simple, but the Democratic/liberal message is as difficult and messy as, well, governing.

The thing that would be comical if it wasn't so daft is what has happened since Clinton became President a year or two into his first term. He spent the rest of his time eating the Republicans' lunch on small government, economic growth, fiscal sanity (though not taxes for sure), the military, you name it.

And I watched the republican part of my family wander off into some sort of Limbaugh Limbo, despite having argued many of the same propositions during the Reagan years, just because they hated the Democrats, and Clinton especially.

@ morganjah: "Is there any doubt from your rhetoric that you would like to see nothing more than 'liberals' and those who disagree with you lined up in concentration camps and gassed?"

morganjah, accusing someone of wanting to gas the people with which he disagrees crosses a line. RR may strongly disagree with the majority of liberals and Democrats and hold many of their viewpoints in contempt, but he has never said anything that indicates or implies that he wants them to die.

Furthermore, given that the words of his that you quoted were *intentionally* designed to parallel *your own words*, if you believe that his quote proves that he wants to gas his political adversaries then we must all logically conclude that you want the same.

@ ccusa: "G, the writer of that article is a liberal. I recognize it may be hard to get you to agree to that."

What on Earth are you talking about? Of *course* he is a liberal; when did I ever claim that he wasn't? My point is that his pacifist viewpoint is not *shared* by the *majority* of liberals, so you cannot cite this article as evidence that liberals in general cannot be trusted with power. Is this really so hard to understand?

I mean, I could probably dredge up an op-end written by a Christian talking about how we need to rework out legal system to be based exclusively on the Bible and specifically the prohibitions in Leviticus, etc. By your logic, that would provide evidence that no Christian can ever given political power. Is this really what you believe?

RR:"@morganjah, and when I was at a Democratic rally looking for ninja turtles, the Democrats told me "We want more taxes, more regulation, less private enterprise, more labor unionization, more employee compensation, and more protectionism. And we want all that with a 4% unemployment rate and a high standard of living."

No you didn't. But you are a prime example of what the author was talking about, a belligerent absolutist who makes facts up on the spot to support an irrational ideology, than redefines his made-up fantasy as 'real'. And you are making my point very well as well. Is there any doubt from your rhetoric that you would like to see nothing more than 'liberals' and those who disagree with you lined up in concentration camps and gassed? If we dispense with the specific words, which really don't matter, and focus on the tone of your rhetoric, we hear Nazis and Brownshirts, Bolsheviks and Maoists, the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge, Jacobins and reigns of terror.